Human cells do not "tend to stick together" any more than sintering powder or ABS pellets tend to stick together. The mechanism for sticking them together and the triggering of that mechanism is a little bit more complicated than a bit of warming. I'm done here.
Human cells tend to stick together naturally (else we'd be perhaps living puddles of goo).
I think this quote is pretty sufficient demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about and are happy to fill in the gaps in your knowledge with flights of fancy to suit your argument. Well if the creation of rapid prototyped prostheses makes you feel any closer to the realisation of rapid prototyped than the normal passage of time then good for you, I guess.
I think it could be made to work, just with voxel based printing systems. As to the "make things hot" there are other ways to apply materials, for example via syringe. Cells are easy to squeeze like a paste (or maybe icing for a pastry). All you need is something to fix the cells into place and a means for keeping the organ alive both during and after construction.
Again, squeezing the paste is the easy bit. The "all you need" part of fixing cells in place is the bit which has nothing to do with existing 3D printing technology. Squeezing out finer pastes of molten polymers at a faster rate isn't useful. We can already squeeze cells through syringes just fine.
3D printing as it is currently practiced provides a tested system for building 3-D objects, which organs happen to be. I simply don't buy that this innovation is so paltry and simple, that it doesn't contribute to the potential technology of printing organs.
I suppose this depends if you viewed 2D printing as an exciting precursor to 3D printing. That is roughly the degree of relevance that I would ascribe 3D printing as we know it to organ printing as you describe it.
Maybe you are right and this will happen, but if it does, nothing about the current advances in 3D printing is advancing us anywhere towards that kind of technology. Everything that's being developed right now is about sticking voxels of material together by making them hot. I don't know how cells are held together in normal biological tissue but I'm pretty sure you don't stack them together like Legos and you definitely don't melt them. The bit which crosses over, controlling where cells are positioned, is the easy bit. We've been positioning things in 3D space for decades. The current craze for making the deposition resolution smaller and the fusion process faster has no relevance to printing organs.
(you need court orders in those places)
It should be legally impossible for a man to take on responsibility for a newborn...
How do you expect to make a man take responsibility for a newborn except by court order?
You appear to be unaware what the word analytical means.
It's a problem where you plug in the initial numbers and out pops the answer. You don't need to do integration. a+b=c.
A differential equation finds an approximation which may be very very close, but it is not an analytical solution.
You appear to be unaware what the word solution means (hint: it's not a problem).
As long as there are manual overrides -- and there will *always* be manual overrides
Why do you think this? Once the emergency situations you speak of become so rare that users of these cars don't stay familiar enough with driving in manual to be of any better use than the AI, cars will start to ship without the necessary controls to drive the car yourself. Once we are accustomed to cars doing the driving, consumers will love these cars for comfort and price, both of the car and its insurance. Once these are popular, if the drivers still driving manually are as big assholes as we expect, it won't be so hard to ban those cars from public roads altogether.
I should have been more specific, but the term "additive manufacturing" is usually used for processes that make 3D shapes out of homogeneous materials - especially in this context. Assembly, bonding, finishing, and other processes that combine materials are a different matter.
In the case of TFA, the assembly is all done by hand and the point of interest is the means of manufacture of the board that forms the structural base for the circuit. Never in a million years would you make a two-layer PCB that didn't have to be drilled before you put in the barrel inserts.
Incidentally, in the context of shaping materials, there are lots of processes which are neither additive nor subtractive like rolling, extrusion and anything involving moulds.
Depending on the use case you pick, there are processes which are inherently faster and higher quality, even for raised lettering, that already exist - just like for PCBs and books.
Additive manufacturing is generally only efficient at producing shapes on a one-off basis if they vary along more than two axes, on a bulk basis if they are impossible to manufacture by other means, or in the narrow margin in between where the batch is too small to take advantage of other scalable processes. It turns out that in real life there are very few things we use that match those criteria, and not many things that do that we would use if only it were easier to make them.
So now we're using 3D printers to make things that are already printed in real life?
Next week, a 3D-printed book. No ink, kids! Just delicious ABS plastic pages with the letters raised from the surface.
All told, this works quite well as a parable for why the benefits of 3D printing will not lead to everyone manufacturing all their own consumer products at home, nor will manufacturers be replacing any substantial volume of their processes with 3D printing.
Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
